While I certainly respect these directors when it comes to 2D art in Film making, I firmly believe most of them, probably all of them, including Cameron, are just students of the art when it comes to 3D. Del Toro obviously doesn't understand the physics of stereography very well by the obvious gaffes in his comments. He would be well advised to have a discussion with people like Mendiburo who understand how to configure the camera to properly capture the scale of depth on a screen that compresses it in perspective to the height and width of the frame. It's not a simple formula but properly done there is no reason why large scale scenes shot from great distances can't be compressed in proper relation to the width and height of the screen.

Very few directors understand the range of possibilities when it comes to the science of stereography. Rather they, like Cameron, often choose to limit the range by fixing one variable in the camera system to a single number. Unfortunately this restricts the shooting distance and zoom of the scene for 3D. Yes, it does make the setup for each camera in each scene more complex and more costly, but to state that the technology doesn't work is just completely wrong, ignorant of what's possible, or a refusal for other reasons, like cost, not to deal with the technology available.

I don't want to say del Toro is wrong here for his decision, but he should not come on as an authority on 3D and then make a statement that is the basis for his decision that is so obviously wrong from a technology perspective. If he was properly educated in 3D he would know and then maybe decide based on cost and complexity.

The solution to his problem is he needs to adjust the stereobase for each 3D camera system determined by it's location to the scene. Just as they measure the distances for proper focus with a tape on set, they need to measure all parts of the scene with that tape for 3D. Then apply those numbers in a complex formula to determine the optimum stereobase adjustment and convergence angle and horizontal disparity. Never said it was simple but it is possible and is done all the time when the director knows and understands the science.

Directors like Cameron, have said they stick to 65mm stereobase as a "rule" while this is the best setting for all normal range shooting, it simply does not work in special shots where very large needs to be compressed to a smaller size, as in a tall building or mountain compressed to the size of a movie theater screen or even a 3D TV. 65mm will do for 80% of most work but that SB will need to be reduced when shooting small scenes where the camera needs to be closer than "normal" Like shooting tiny worlds of a beehive, or a spider making his web. Likewise for the very large much wider stereobase has to be used and shoot great distances to achieve the size and maintain proper depth on the theater screen.

Shooting 65mm SB is safe and works most of the time, but in some work that needs to be modified as indicated by the science to achieve the desired depth compression to the screen.

My main concern when articles like this appear that so many readers who are enthused about 3D will get the wrong impression and come away thinking the technology is flawed or limited when the reality is the "expert" is not really well informed, ignorant, or has other problems, like budget, he cares not to admit when making these technical gaffes. Lets not assume these "Hollywood" types are all experts in 3D just because they have a successful track record in 2D.

I take it that "stereobase" means the distance between what the two cameras are capturing?

Dumb question, but if you increased that beyond about the distance between a human's eyes, isn't that sort of like making the viewer super-sized? If the viewer's perspective is super-sized, then what he's looking at would seem to be smaller than it would otherwise, right? In terms of 3D depth anyway. That sort of scaling issue seems to be exactly what del Toro doesn't want.

Wouldn't there still be value in pushing the robots deeper into the screen? That is, the image would be the same in each eye, just shifted left and right on the screen. Isn't that how large, distant objects look to us? They're "flat" and lack volume, but you still get one very nice stereoscopic clue: it's far away, and (if it's robot if filling a up much of the screen) it's therefore big! Scale! This is the sort of thing PC gamers routinely fiddle with. You can very easily make something look close and small, or distant and large, by simply adjusting depth and convergence settings. The process is different of course if you're filming something, but I don't see why you couldn't get the same results.

Perhaps he figures it isn't worth it, as a large 2D movie theater screen already lends itself to a large scale (though you won't have that for the Blu-ray). But I don't see how 3D could do anything but help scale when applied realistically.

I take it that "stereobase" means the distance between what the two cameras are capturing?
Dumb question, but if you increased that beyond about the distance between a human's eyes, isn't that sort of like making the viewer super-sized? If the viewer's perspective is super-sized, then what he's looking at would seem to be smaller than it would otherwise, right? In terms of 3D depth anyway. That sort of scaling issue seems to be exactly what del Toro doesn't want.
Sorry if I'm not understanding something here - I'm basically Joe Consumer on this subject.

Yeah, you're right on everything. And distance between the cameras can also be commonly called the interaxial, interocular, IO, etc.

Wouldn't there still be value in pushing the robots deeper into the screen? That is, the image would be the same in each eye, just shifted left and right on the screen. Isn't that how large, distant objects look to us? They're "flat" and lack volume, but you still get one very nice stereoscopic clue: it's far away, and (if it's robot if filling a up much of the screen) it's therefore big! Scale! This is the sort of thing PC gamers routinely fiddle with. You can very easily make something look close and small, or distant and large, by simply adjusting depth and convergence settings. The process is different of course if you're filming something, but I don't see why you couldn't get the same results.
Perhaps he figures it isn't worth it, as a large 2D movie theater screen already lends itself to a large scale (though you won't have that for the Blu-ray). But I don't see how 3D could do anything but help scale when applied realistically.

The occasional large-scale vista shot would be fine, but I think Pacific Rim will have a much higher ratio of large scale long distance cinematography, as the giant creatures and mechs are the primary draw of this film. With such a high ratio of those flat-with-depth shots people would start getting upset that they aren't getting much bang for their buck.

However I think that introducing more close-up shots from the surface of the creatures/robots as they fought would have made for a suitable 3D movie with no miniaturization necessary. Get closer is the solution. There's a PS2 game called Shadow of the Colossus, which was ported to a 3D/HD collection on PS3, and it plays out this way.

Its a difficult concept to explain without the use of 3D physics. Even in the book "3D Movie Making" Mendiburu uses a DVD with video of a 3D Studio image explanation in order to demonstrate the use of and importance of stereo base ( I.O., I.A. ) . Even more difficult, I think, is to explain when the student has no concept of shooting stereography with wide SB or as was shown by cakefoo-- Hyperstereobase. FWIW- Hyperstereobase is generally considered where the two cameras will be spaced apart by more distance than what can be achieved with a single tripod or mount location. The reason why Mendiburu uses a 3D studio DVD to depart from his paper book to explain the concepts is he wanted to show how I.O. and lens angle are interrelated to image capture size ( the camera imager area) and the final screen size and the viewer distance from the screen are all interrelated and have a cause- effect relation on each other.

In cakefoos example of hyperstereo the SB was great, maybe 200 meters separation and it created a good 3D compression of the city on a final size of my computer screen. Sure the scene was miniaturized but my computer screen was not the size of the city so that is an obvious statement. In fact it is true whether the scene is in 2D or 3D. The stereographic aspect of the picture has nothing to do with miniaturization if that is the principal complaint. However, with scene compression to small screen size, we have to also properly compress the depth the same as the length and width. This is where it gets complicated with stereography.

For simplicity we can state that the wider angle the lens plus the greater camera to subject distance, the more of the scene we can capture. But in stereography as the scene gets bigger, for a small IO distance of 65mm ( normal human vision) the depth is almost lost once we see the scene beyond a distance of about 100 ft., completely gone at about 200 ft. If we move back farther away and zoom in reducing the angle of capture the scene begins to take on that 3D look again but suffers in that each object in the scene loses its own individual depth. This is called the popup book effect. Objects have depth between them but no depth in and of themselves. To recover the object depth in a large scene ( cakefoos city) the SB I.O. must be increased accordingly. How much? That is for the calculations to determine and it is an exact mathematical relationship.

So what happened to our concept of miniaturization in all this? Miniaturization is an issue whether we are using stereography or flat 2D. Cameramen have long known how to create the illusion of large on a small screen or tiny on a small screen. It has to do with camera angle, not lens angle and is a psychological phenomena. For example- If you come upon a small puppy you feel superior and powerful because you see the puppy from your high overhead taller, bigger perspective. But what if that puppy is now 100 ft tall and you look at it from a new perspective ( up camera angle)? Do you feel bigger and more powerful? No! It has to do with camera angle. One, you are looking up at the subject and the other you are looking down. As simple as it sounds, cameramen have been using that concept for over a century to create the illusion of size relationship on the small screen ( a screen smaller than the real world.) In addition, all huge sizes of an object will have no size perspective at all unless we have some knowledge of what to compare it to. Again these are all 2D concepts. So to complete the size relationship, we have to put another object or person in the shot for that relationship as a means of size reference. Then to give that big or small illusion we shoot it looking up or down at the subject.

Finally to create the proper perspective in stereography, we just need to make sure the stereobase is the right distance for the scene size, the distance to the scene near and far points of total depth, the lens angle, the imager size and the final view screen size as well as the viewer distance to the screen. Yes, the formula is complex physics but fortunately, if you know all the variables, you can use a Stereo base calculator to determine the proper I.O. to set the cameras at. They even make one for the ipad oir one for the android phone which I use here. If the stereobase is not properly set, then the final result will not be in proper perspective and it begins to take on that surreal look. But you will still get the stereo 3D effect to a percentage of good results.

Personally, when I shoot Ultra Stereo base video ( stereobase that is wider than normal but still mounted on a single tripod) I rarely use the calculator and therefore some of my shots have that surreal look. The reason is after much experience I saw that the numbers have a certain pattern of tolerance and I can look at a scene now and approximate the I.O. amount. That works to please me with about 50% accuracy. But if I were shooting for hire, I would be using the calculations for every shot.

I know some of this will seem alien to you if you don't shoot at all, somewhat familiar if you are a student of the camera, but to those that shoot lots of Hyper stereo and Ultra stereo, it just is common sense. You can either accept it or reject it, that is your choice, but either way it doesn't change how we shoot and get the results. I'm a student of stereography. I try to learn as much as I can about how its done through classes, reading, and hands on practice. But one thing I have learned over my 25 years of professional shooting, much longer as a hobby, and that is as soon as some expert comes along and says something is not possible another will soon show him how it's done.

The stereographic aspect of the picture has nothing to do with miniaturization if that is the principal complaint.

Maybe it's a perceptual thing that differs from person to person, but that photo posted above absolutely had a miniaturization effect to me with red/cyan glasses. If I close one eye though, it looks normal (well, other than everything being blue or red!). The depth cue we haven't talked about yet is the fact that I know how big a building is, how big a boat is, etc, and my brain can process the scale properly when there's no mega stereoscopic effect. But in 3D, to me everything looks like little models or toys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Landis

I know some of this will seem alien to you if you don't shoot at all, somewhat familiar if you are a student of the camera, but to those that shoot lots of Hyper stereo and Ultra stereo, it just is common sense.

common sense - "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Hehe, anyway, do you happen to have an example of a super-duper stereo shot that does not have the miniaturiazation effect? I suppose that comes out as sort of a leading question, since you don't seem to perceive a connection between 3D and miniaturaization. Are there some examples of super/hyper/ultra stereo shots in movies, documentaries, your own stuff, etc, that woud help illustrate the "right" way to do it?

I'm working on as project right now that I shot with Ultra stereo. The subject stage ranges from several thousand feet wide to about 4-10 miles deep. The objects in the scene are 100 ft tall trees and Hoodoos ranging from 100 ft tall to over 1500 ft tall. In most of my shots that do not exhibit any depth distortion to the the size perspective, I tried to keep the stage size more of a cube than a long deep rectangular solid. But, in this project I shot mostly from high up with a downward angle and this in and of itself results in a smaller perception of the size, especially of the Hoodoos. Regardless this project gives me the actually look alike feel of being there.

In this project I do a demonstration of 2D to 3D with a basic pan across the same scene of approximately 800 ft tall Hoodoos. As the scene pans the image goes from 2D to 3D. The distance to the main subjects in the shot is about 1000 ft. away and I used an IA of 28" The result is that there is no shrinkage to miniature of the stage as I do the pan and the scene converts to 3D. While my purpose for this demo is not to show the lack of miniaturization in a properly designed camera system but rather just to show how 3D adds a more realistic picture of this valley. That is explained in the video.

The project is just completed for the first cut of its full length today. Its about 37 minutes long and is a complete documentary on Bryce Canyon National Park. When complete, I will be uploading this to my YT channel as well as giving out a link for a free download of the 3D BD iso file. Hopefully, it will be complete next week.

There are some examples of wide stereobase 3D in my already uploaded Valley of Fire Documentary. Here the objects in the 3D stage are also quite large and are shot from ground level. Feel free to visit Valley of Fire on my YT channel.

Overall, my own assessment is that when shooting the large stages and large objects, the two documentaries have a basic fundamental difference in that Valley of fire was shot from the ground up and in Bryce Canyon, from the canyon rim down. Both have shots with depth extending out to many miles but Valley of Fire is normally under 5 miles.

But in stereography as the scene gets bigger, for a small IO distance of 65mm ( normal human vision) the depth is almost lost once we see the scene beyond a distance of about 100 ft., completely gone at about 200 ft.

Quote:

To recover the object depth in a large scene ( cakefoos city) the SB I.O. must be increased accordingly. How much? That is for the calculations to determine and it is an exact mathematical relationship.

In that building scenario a loss of depth is HELPING the realism. The conflict is that it makes it hard to justify the 3D ticket premium if most of the movie is shot from hundreds of feet away from the main characters.

"Del Toro obviously doesn't understand the physics of stereography very well by the obvious gaffes in his comments. "

No YOU obviously don't understand plain English. He spoke in the video interview about forcing the parallax to a greater value to give it more pop, but that that would harm the sense of scale. Better to do the movie in 2D and let the viewer create the depth out of the 2D cues as they have done for decades.

Quote:

Cameramen have long known how to create the illusion of large on a small screen or tiny on a small screen. It has to do with camera angle, not lens angle and is a psychological phenomena. For example- If you come upon a small puppy you feel superior and powerful because you see the puppy from your high overhead taller, bigger perspective. But what if that puppy is now 100 ft tall and you look at it from a new perspective ( up camera angle)? Do you feel bigger and more powerful? No! It has to do with camera angle.

A different perspective doesn't have to be employed to make something appears big or small. Tiltshift photography is the 2D equivalent of hyperstereo, and it creates a shallow depth of field effect where only a small amount of the image is in focus at any one time.

The image on the left looks more realistic, does it not? The right has more depth information, but it's a look that we normally only associate with objects that are inches away from our face . The mathematical formula for max stereo budgets has to be used with discretion if the object is to attain relatively realistic 3D.

No YOU obviously don't understand plain English. He spoke in the video interview about forcing the parallax to a greater value to give it more pop, but that that would harm the sense of scale. Better to do the movie in 2D and let the viewer create the depth out of the 2D cues as they have done for decades.

Never claimed to be an expert in English, just an experienced writer of TV commercials and TV programs.

You can force parallax for greater % range from zero but while this does give you more "pop" it causes the eye muscles to work harder. It also reduces the number of viewers who are able to see 3D without seeing double images in the extreme foreground and extreme background. This problem is well known by experienced stereographers. I observed this claim from more viewers of my Valley of Fire documentary than in my stereo productions that safely followed the rules for easy 3D interpretation by the viewer. If one can see the stereo in a wide disparity scene it does not harm the sense of scale, But if the scene cannot be converged properly, then it harms the ability to see it in 3D altogether. As I said before, del Toro would be well advised to find a good experienced stereographer to assist him in solving his problems if he really wanted to do 3D. It's easy to give up and blame a technology for your own shortcomings. I tried to find a list of 3D movies Guillermo Del Toro has to his credit but was not able to find any. I think the ones I did see him talking about are plans for his future. While he is to be respected for being a successful 2D director, that in no way makes him an authority on 3D.

Quote:

The image on the left looks more realistic, does it not? The right has more depth information, but would not be realistic.

Not to me. Both are 2D flat realistic views as far as 2D can do. The right one is just shot with a wider camera angle and has a limited stage size bounded by the arena.

Quote:

The mathematical formula for max stereo budgets has to be used with discretion if the object is to attain relatively realistic 3D.

Sorry, my limited English has me baffled as to what this means in reference to those images. I do know what it is to work within a budget set by a client. If you're suggesting that del Toro has budget constrains that prevents him from doing this production properly in 3D, then we agree. Del Toro discusses how his producers have forced him to have to prove he can do it by needing to cut the movie and show proof of performance along the way to keep his budget active. ( Ref- Mimic comment- I needed to edit each day as we shot to survive. ) On a smaller scale, I experienced the same when I first started doing TV shows for clients. As I had more experience, my clients began to cut me loose with a comfortable budget for my shows.

You can force parallax for greater % range from zero but while this does give you more "pop" it causes the eye muscles to work harder It also reduces the number of viewers who are able to see 3D without seeing double images in the extreme foreground and extreme background. This problem is well known by experienced stereographers.

He was obviously not contemplating anything that would go beyond the standard hollywood 3D, but rather just make the layers noticeable AT ALL. The problem with noticeable depth in a shot like this though is that those robots are huge and they're very far away from the camera and therefore you should not be able to detect any separation from front to back. If you CAN detect separation then your brain will tell you that the objects are smaller than they should be.

Quote:

If one can see the stereo in a wide disparity scene it does not harm the sense of scale.

Would you consider the large-scale anaglyph skyscraper photo a "wide disparity scene?" Because I can see it just fine, yet the sense of scale is miniaturized like crazy.

Quote:

As I said before, del Toro would be well advised to find a good experienced stereographer to assist him in solving his problems if he really wanted to do 3D. It's easy to give up and blame a technology for your own shortcomings.

Hey hotshot, if it's so simple then why don't you post ONE example, on Youtube, or MPO, or even an anaglyph image? Enough bashing Del Toro for a lack of knowledge on 3D, I fully support his decision and his view and I've been shooting 3D for 2 and a half years. Your eyes must have a problem if you can't see what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Not to me. Both are 2D flat realistic views as far as 2D can do. The right one is just shot with a wider camera angle and has a limited stage size bounded by the arena.

What? The camera angles are relatively identical. The only major difference is that the one on the right has an extremely shallow depth of field, giving it the illusion that it's much smaller and much closer to the viewer. The stereo image of the skyscrapers is miniaturized in the same way.

Quote:

Sorry, my limited English has me baffled as to what this means in reference to those images. I do know what it is to work within a budget set by a client.

Depth budget, stereo budget, etc: "The maximum amount of 3D depth in-front and behind the physical display surface that it is recommended to use for a specific 3D display. If the depth budget is exceeded then viewers will find it increasingly uncomfortable to view a stereoscopic image."

Using a formula will ensure that you have a max 3D effect at all times, but that doesn't mean you have the most realistic 3D effect. The formula must be used with discretion. Make the IO too wide and the objects will start to look miniaturized like the skyscraper image. Del Toro is saying he would rather shoot in 2D than to have to explain to Joe Schmo why a lot of the movie looks flat and distant.

Though I'm fascinated with Don's knowledge, I'm finding cakefoo's stance toward 3D depth, scale, and realism more aligns with what I want to get out of 3D. To me, 3D is all about realism. That means not moving the left and right cameras beyond 6.5 cm apart and allowing objects to look as distant and as large as they should be, even when that comes at the cost of 3Dness, or volume.

That isn't to say the stuff Don is describing isn't fascinating; I'm eager to take a look. But the fact is, when I'm configuring a 3D PC game, I treat my 90" screen as a window, and adjust convergence to make characters, cars, buildings, etc look as large as they should be if I were to truly look through such a window. To me it's realism first, 3D pop third or fourth.

I sampled Don's Valley of Fire documenary. It's got a very nice sense of depth and is really pretty cool. But it illustrates that miniaturization effect very well too. When you see tourists walking around, they look like little bitty people to me. It's clear that some folks perceive the miniaturization effect and some don't, so I'm OK leaving that with "it's subjective." del Toro has made his decision based on his perception.

Whether it's 2D or 3D, it does sound like it's going to be challenging to avoid making mechs the size of 25 football stadiums not look hokey. At least it's not a sequel / prequel / reboot / remake.

The main thing is, Del Toro is NOT a bumbling 3D noob. He wants realism, average Joe wants pop. Pacific Rim is a unique, very large-scale movie and it can't have both pop and realism. The human eye can't detect much if any depth past 20 feet, and Pacific Rim's monsters will probably be much further away than that if the cameras are to capture any significant portion of their bodies in the frame. They need their bodies in the frame so we can see them fighting. IO can be exaggerated a little to compensate, but only to a certain point. As you increase the IO, the movie goer begins to feel like a giant, and therefore the scene starts to shrink, NO MATTER WHAT THE SCREEN SIZE, because the occlusion cues, how much you can see behind an object when you alternate eyes, are written in stone. The only solution is to frame more shots closer to the subjects. But this would require a lot of creative changes. I don't think Pacific Rim was written and storyboarded with 3D in mind.

I sampled Don's Valley of Fire documenary. It's got a very nice sense of depth and is really pretty cool. But it illustrates that miniaturization effect very well too. When you see tourists walking around, they look like little bitty people to me. It's clear that some folks perceive the miniaturization effect and some don't, so I'm OK leaving that with "it's subjective." del Toro has made his decision based on his perception.
Whether it's 2D or 3D, it does sound like it's going to be challenging to avoid making mechs the size of 25 football stadiums not look hokey. At least it's not a sequel / prequel / reboot / remake.

Well I'm open to all suggestions- When a 6 ft person stands next to a 50 ft tall boulder, how does one make the person look bigger than the boulder? A better question is why should the person not appear small next to the boulder? I've had several viewers use the Beehives scene in Valley of Fire as an argument for the " I hate the miniaturization effect" Fact is in a simple test, shutting off the 3D and viewing the exact same shot in 2D the person is still small next to the boulder. I shot that Beehives scene from about 200 ft away to get that look of the size of these rock formations. Otherwise one could get the idea that those Beehives were no bigger than 1-2 ft shot up close. The key to knowing the size is shooting a known reference next to the unknown subject.

Quote:

Would you consider the large-scale anaglyph skyscraper photo a "wide disparity scene?" Because I can see it just fine, yet the sense of scale is miniaturized like crazy.

Absolutely it is miniature and has wide horizontal disparity to generate a good sense of depth. Maybe we have different definitions of the word miniature but in my mind miniature means small relative to something bigger. Anytime you compress a city into a small photograph the size is miniaturized because the photo is not real life size. I think when a 3D shooter uses the wrong I.O. for the stage size the depth can be elongated in the size compression, This creates what we call a forced perspective view. Not that this is a bad thing, it is just an effect of having the z axis compressed differently than the height and width.
The main question I've been wondering is why are we ( not del Toro) even complaining about this? I can accept that del Toro doesn't know how to shoot his large scale objects in 3D, because he may not know how ultra stereo works. But more likely, his project just doesn't have the budget to double the number of cameras plus add the support structure to pair them and what he really doesn't know how to do is get the 3D with his restricted budget.

I also have to question the claim that everything must be real or it's no good, then we sit and rave about unreal stories with stuff like giant robots and other science fiction. Lets be consistent here, OK? LOL! I have never claimed stereography is real. It is just an illusion in your brain. Some people can see it better than others and some not at all. I don't restrict myself to rules like if it isn't real then I don't like it. I love science fiction and will enjoy DelToro's work even in 2D and I enjoy stuff that isn't real. That is part of the fun. And, I never said he is a "bumbling 3D noob" either. I said he is obviously not an expert in stereography and listening to him speak on it, there were a number of gaffes that gave that away. I said he would be well advised to hire an expert in 3D stereography who could show him how it's done. (But then there is my suspicion of budget issues.)

Likewise you, cakefoo, make lots of bold statements about what can and cannot be done in 3D. Pretty arrogant for someone who hasn't presented his portfolio of stereography. I respect you for having lots of opinions on what others do, ( Critics are an important resource for producers of content) but, how about you get in the trenches and do a little creation yourself. if you wish to tell people who do this stuff how it's done. When you don't walk the walk, it's better to just state what you prefer to watch. I respect that far more. And, believe it or not I do listen!

correction to my earlier statement-

Quote:Not to me. Both are 2D flat realistic views as far as 2D can do. The right one is just shot with a wider camera angle and has a limited stage size bounded by the arena.
What? The camera angles are relatively identical. The only major difference is that the one on the right has an extremely shallow depth of field, giving it the illusion that it's much smaller and much closer to the viewer.

I would only add that the right one could be shot with the same lens but maybe from a greater distance. The court is physically smaller in the right image and that has nothing to do with the depth of focus. Did you go out and shoot that yourself just for this thread? How do you know what lens was used? You have an amazing collection of photos.

PS- On the 3D hyperstereo city, what impressed me the most in that shot was not the 3D but the clarity. Air quality around Seattle, or most cities is normally hazy. Forget the stereography. I understand how that was done. I want to know how he got such clarity.

Likewise you, cakefoo, make lots of bold statements about what can and cannot be done in 3D. Pretty arrogant for someone who hasn't presented his portfolio of stereography. I respect you for having lots of opinions on what others do, ( Critics are an important resource for producers of content) but, how about you get in the trenches and do a little creation yourself. if you wish to tell people who do this stuff how it's done. When you don't walk the walk, it's better to just state what you prefer to watch. I respect that far more. And, believe it or not I do listen!

I never said you did anything wrong in your work, or that I could do it better. You do what you want and you are happy with your results. Del Toro though, has different goals than you, and you attack his expertise for it. His artistic vision dictates that he must not exaggerate the 3D because it would make things look like miniatures.

My material though is readily available, it's right in my signature below, and it's always been there...

Quote:

I would only add that the right one could be shot with the same lens but maybe from a greater distance. The court is physically smaller in the right image and that has nothing to do with the depth of focus.

No. Here, just so you can't split hairs over trivial differences in pixel height, this time the images are 100% identical in every way except depth of field.

Depth of field is what gives tilt-shift photography its iconic miniature effect. It's the same with hyperstereo, except that the image doesn't get soft, it just doubles and splits apart. This is the same effect that would happen if Del Toro had shot his gigantic monsters with a stereobase that greatly exceeded that of a human.

Quote:

Did you go out and shoot that yourself just for this thread? How do you know what lens was used? You have an amazing collection of photos.

No, I just know what lens it used because to me tilt-shift photography is effortlessly recognizable, and the only way to do it is to use a tilt-shift lens or photo editing programs.

I like hyperstereo. Don't get me wrong. Like microscopes amplify the X and Y axes for the purpose of better understanding things that we otherwise couldn't see in detail, hyperstereo provides a great increase in Z axis information. It's just that it doesn't fit with movie projects that are trying for more realistic images.

My material though is readily available, it's right in my signature below, and it's always been there...

Well, I apologize! I forgot you use a different alias in YT channel. I recall you mastering the art of the steadicam devices now. Plus you like to shoot classic cars. Nice video!

Those two shots of the village appear like the same picture and one was "photoshopped" with a gradient blur added. Pretty easy to do, you know. To me, both are miniaturized by the "tilt shift" or downward angle to the same degree. Had you shot this from the ground up the buildings would appear large even with the background racked out of focus.

Use of forced perspective from wide angle photography close up- In your classic car videos you skillfully access a surreal exaggeration of reality by shooting those cars close and wide angle to elongate the perspective too. It is a nice use of wide angle knowledge. I don't see it as bad and obviously you don't either. However, I do see it as a distortion of reality. As I said before, I don't insist on everything has to look realistic, as I appreciate the art in how the video was shot.

Quote:

It's the same with hyperstereo, except that the image doesn't get soft, it just doubles and splits apart.

Technically this is not correct. If it was only a simple doubling all we would need to do is take a 2 D image and super impose an instance and slide one horizontally to a degree of disparity to make it 3D and we both know that doesn't work. The disparity of geometry along the Z axis varies as a function of two hyperbolic curves. In hyperstereo, these curves are more exaggerated than when the I.O. is normal or small. In the extreme, the image does double and splits apart but that is also a function of a persons 3D vision capability. The maximum doubling separation is said to be 3% of the screen size for most people's comfort. I violated this rule in my Valley of Fire on a couple of shots where the desert floor extends from way behind the screen to about 50% of the viewing distance in front of my screen. I did this because that was the look I wanted and my vision can tolerate it. If my audience was commercial I would go with safe and stay below 3%. Even normal stereo and less than normal can suffer wide disparity but these shots only happen on shooting closer than the camera was designed or recommended.

PS- A hyperstereo scene of proper stage size can be rack focus too. Doesn't have to be all in focus. The two results, Z axis disparity and what's in and out of focus are entirely separate and neither is affected by the other. The way to do this on a bright day is to shoot at high shutter speed to permit the lens to be wide open, then zoom in on the subject to narrow the depth of field. Hyperstereo will prevent the subject from flattening at this great zoomed in distance. The wide open lens will permit a tighter depth of field than the field of the image.

I think sometimes we forget that miniaturization is a phenomenon that occurs in natural human binocular vision. I was reminded of this recently while flying on an airplane. There is a period of time after takeoff and before landing where cars, trees, buildings, etc. look like small scale models with depth. If your goal is pure 3D realism, then sometimes miniaturization is okay.

It sounds to me like Del Toro has a creative vision for his movie that works well in 2D but he is not willing to adapt his vision to achieve pleasing 3D. That disappoints me more than anything as I was previously looking forward to seeing how a creative filmmaker like Del Toro might use 3D in ways that haven't been done before.

When I compare the Seattle scene in 3D to 2D by closing and opening my left eye, the needle jumps closer going from 2D to 3D. I think it would be interesting to poll whether anyone does not perceive it that way. It might be another issue whether that yields a miniaturization effect, but the logic of it points that way. It didn't look so much smaller to me, though. But I'm used to buildings and did not expect to see a photo of a model of a city.

Well I'm open to all suggestions- When a 6 ft person stands next to a 50 ft tall boulder, how does one make the person look bigger than the boulder? A better question is why should the person not appear small next to the boulder? I've had several viewers use the Beehives scene in Valley of Fire as an argument for the " I hate the miniaturization effect" Fact is in a simple test, shutting off the 3D and viewing the exact same shot in 2D the person is still small next to the boulder. I shot that Beehives scene from about 200 ft away to get that look of the size of these rock formations. Otherwise one could get the idea that those Beehives were no bigger than 1-2 ft shot up close. The key to knowing the size is shooting a known reference next to the unknown subject.

What's the time index on the beehives scene? I admit I watched about five minutes and then just randomly sampled the rest of the video.

This miniaturization effect is such a subjective, perceptual thing. If I look at a wide 2D image with something in it that I know the scale of, my brain can fill in the blanks and it's fine. But with super-duper 3D, it's giving me an unnatural depth cue and giving me an overly literal sense of scale. Perhaps you've just viewed a lot more 3D content than most and are more used to it.

The best example in a movie I can recall is an early sequence in Transformers 3. It's a super wide shot of the robot home planet (or something) and you can see transformer robots walking around that are tiny in the scene. In 2D, since you know roughly how big a transformer is, it comes across as this gigantic structure. But in 3D (to me at least), it looks like little tiny toys walking around. Which is appropriate given the property I suppose , but perhaps not the intended effect. It's entirely possible that someone who watches 3D content regularly can do the same sort of "brain scaling" that I would do in 2D and it doesn't seem odd to them at all.

It could be roughly analogous to the early footage of The Hobbit that Peter Jackson showed at 48 frames per second. People generally rejected it as looking too odd. But that could be a matter of what you're used to.

Steve- Thanks, I never knew that. Probably because I see the in focus drawing my attention but not as a change from real to a fake diorama.

I still don't see the relationship to hyperstereo, however.

As for this fake diorama simulation, I agree it would be interesting to see how many people see the illusion. This is one I don't get. Also, The sky needle stays the same when I shut my left or right eye. All buildings remain the same size in my vision.

The anaglyph 3D city photo seemed realistic. In the 2D tennis court photos, the first one looks realistic and the second one looks like a model. In the neighborhood + snowy mountain 2D photos, both look like models but the first one a little moreso than the second.

Steve- Thanks, I never knew that. Probably because I see the in focus drawing my attention but not as a change from real to a fake diorama.
I still don't see the relationship to hyperstereo, however.
As for this fake diorama simulation, I agree it would be interesting to see how many people see the illusion. This is one I don't get. Also, The sky needle stays the same when I shut my left or right eye. All buildings remain the same size in my vision.

Interesting. For me it's not that the relative sizes are different, it's that the whole scene takes on a "looks like a model" vibe. If you shot with human distance between what the two cameras are capturing and shot a scale model of that scene so that it was framed and scaled the same, the stereo depth cues would be the same, right? That would be the "looks like a model" thing.

What I found interesting is that they list 15 different depth cues, but only three that are related to binocular vision. It seems that if you muck with any one of them (monocular or binocular) out of scale with the rest, you can get unnatural results (depending on the perception of the viewer of course).